HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-01-16; City Council; 5250-4; Agua Hedionda LagoonCITY OF CARLSBAD
. Initial:
AGENDA BILL NO. SQ^O — V4^^ -&- j^ Dept. Hd.
DATE: JANUARY 16,197.9 C.
DEPARTMENT: Utilities and Maintenance C. Mgr.
Subject:
AGUA HEDIONDA LAGOON; POLICY ISSUES
Statement of the Matter
Council received a report by David Smith and Associates entitled "An Analysis
of Dredging Requirements for Agua Hedionda Lagoon" at their regular meeting of
December 5, 1978. Council approved the report and directed staff to develop a
summary of key issues relating to the future of the Lagoon in order to assist
Council in developing strategies and policies. Copies of the Smith report have
been provided to San Diego Gas and Electric and the Bureau of Fish and Game
in order to elicit their comments concerning future dredging programs. The
Director of Utilities and Maintenance has developed a short report which is
attached.
EXHIBITS:
A. Memorandum from the Director of Utilities and Maintenance Department, 1/5/79,
RECOMMENDATION:
The report is submitted for discussion purposes. Council should discuss and
provide staff with further guidance.
Specific recommendations are included on page 3 of Mr. Greer's
report dated January 5, 1979.
(See Page 2 for Council action)
Agenda Bill No. 5250 - Supplement #4 Page 2
Council Action:
1-16-79 Council directed staff to defer any long term commitment for
lagoon management or maintenance until the issue of ownership
is resolved; and
Council directed staff to conduct discussions with the Department
of Fish and Game to determine their position on the matter of
dredging the middle and inner lagoon to accomplish the purposes
of Dr. Smith's study, and if the Department of Fish and Game
agrees that dredging would not be an obstacle, then staff is
directed to monitor the siltation rates as proposed by Mr.
Greer in his second recommendation for the amount of $4,000.00
a year; and
Council directed staff to investigate the matter of a proposed
speed limit with the owners of Snug Harbor and boat users,
and to report back to Council, said report to also include
consideration of tide elements and the possibility of each
person using the lagoon to supply their own insurance.
January 5, 1979
MEMORANDUM 79-°8
TO: City Manager
FROM: Director of Utilities & Maintenance
SUBJECT: Agua Hedionda Lagoon; Policy Issues
The City presently leases the middle and inner lagoons from SDG&E on a
year to year basis. This lease was originally entered into in 1962 for
two, five year periods, with it continuing on a year-to-year basis there-
after. The lease allows recreational use of the lagoons and provides that
the City will "police, regulate and control entry and activities" accept
liability and hold SDG&E harmless.
The title to the lagoon, held by SDG&E appears to be clouded in that it
originally included tide lands along the original stream bed. The lagoon
was a part of an original Spanish land grant which the State of California
has never included in public trust considerations, however in the case of
Agua Hedionda the State Lands Commission has considered some lands (original
stream-'bed and tidal flats) as public trust. Several title companies have
entered into litigation in this regard as it effects many titles that they
have previously ensured in original rancho lands such as Newport Harbor.
I am unable to determine what the status of this suit is at the present time
or give an estimate as to when it may be resolved.
It appears that a long term arrangement for use of the lagoon should be
deferred until such time as the ownership question is finally resolved.
A long term arrangement is assumed to be the Council's intent, based on
their approval of the Agua Hedionda Specific Plan (para 6.6., Page 14),
which states "The City shall, within sixty (60) days, negotiate on a long
term lease for use of the water surface of the lagoon with SDG&E." Since
the ownership question and the final specific plan are, as this date, unre-
solved, perhaps it is appropriate to review the City's alternatives regarding
management of the lagoon.
ALTERNATIVE 1: Acquire surface rights by lease or other long term
arrangement.
ADVANTAGES:
1. Ensures coordination between lagoon use and land-use surrounding
the lagoon.
2. Ensures use by the public.
3. May prbvide revenues which will offset City costs (partially or in
the long term totally).
DISADVANTAGES: '
1. Liability for unsafe conditions rests with the City. (This liability
exists even on short term present agreement).
Agua Hedionda (co; nued) -2- • January 5, 1979
2. Liability may be reduced by dredging (at a cost of $500,000 -
$750,000) or may be reduced by changing existing use (placing
power restriction or prohibiting power boat use of the inner
lagoon) or by restrictive speed limits in the shoal and landing
area.
3. Management policing and maintenance costs will increase with
existing use.
ALTERNATIVE 2: Return Lagoon Management Responsibilities to SDG&E.
ADVANTAGES:
1. The City is no longer liable for management of the lagoon.
DISADVANTAGES:
1. City looses ability to provide public access.
2. City looses ability to coordinate use with surrounding land-use
decisions.
3. Police requirements will most likely increase due to trespass
and noise violations in that SDG&E has limited police powers
and any actions they may take to limit access/use will increase
violations.
ALTERNATIVE 3: Encourage other public agencies (Federal, State or
County) to assume management of the lagoon from SDG&E.
ADVANTAGES:
1. The City is no longer liable for management of the lagoon.
2. Public access may be provided.
DISADVANTAGES:
1. Coordination of lagoon use and surrounding land use may be more
difficult.
2. Public access will not be under control of the City or may be
limited by the management agency.
3. Management and maintenance efforts may not be at the level desired
by the City i.e., Buena Vista Lagoon requires City effort to police
and perform litter pick-up.
\
4. Policing requirements may/may not be reduced.
Agua Hedionda (cont..<ued) -3- . Januar* 5' 1979
DISCUSSION: The lagoon is a major geographic feature in the City of Carlsbad
and has the potential for providing a wide variety of recreational uses.
Alternatives 2 and 3 obviously have the distinct advantage of getting the City
out of direct involvement with the lagoon and potential liabilities associated
with it. However, the lagoon is such a major feature within the City's
boundaries, it will always cry for City involvement and it is the form of
involvement that the Council may address. The City will be called upon to
directly manage or through regulatory/planning/public interest pressures be
called upon to guide the management; policing may be required as a direct
result of the management effort or in response to public requests. It should
be recognized that the lagoon will require direct City involvement in one form
or another forever.
A major concern of the lagoon relates to the City liabilities to protect the
safety, health and welfare of the using public. The point should be made that
the "using public" is an all inclusive term not restricted to those who use
it's surface, but to the public which enjoys it's vistas, trails around it,
the buffering it provides from noise, and the sanctuary it provides for wildlife.
Thus, decisions which relate to surface users (allowing power boats) may have a
negative effect on those who treasure it's solitude. Each segment of user is
quick to argue their points of view and probably no single feature in Carlsbad
can be counted upon to have as large a roster of advocate groups. It appears,
however, that an equitable decision on the lagoons future can be made on a
cost-"benefit basis. Below are some of the major considerations that should be
included in the cost-benefit rationale.
1. Liability Considerations:
a. Dredging (if all regulatory processes could be satisfied)
would minimize obstacles to power boating. This is a high
cost program and would benefit a select public group.
Limitations on boating would be restricted only by density
(number of boats at one time), noise output and speed.
b. Limiting boating or restricting speeds in dangerous areas.
This requires a higher level of policing and will reduce
the number of-people who might enjoy this sport (it might
increase the numbers of those who wish to fish, etc., however).
The only commercially developed landing presently on the
lagoon would obviously be adversely affected in that the
landing might no longer be usable by boaters and water skiers.
2. Revenues:
a. The City does not presently have a direct revenue source from
users of the lagoons surface. Revenues are derived indirectly
for use by property tax on the landing, business license fees
and sales tax from retail sales of the landing. A rough estimate
Agua Hedionda (continued) -4- January 5, 1979
of the revenues derived by the City in FY79 is approximately
$2750. Direct City costs for patrol salaries, boat maintenance
and bouy maintenance during the same period were approximately
$10,500. User fees and boat license fees might provide some
cost offsets, however, this action might well discourage use
and ultimately reduce revenues. Administration and policing
costs directly related to a licensing program/user fee program
would further reduce the benefit.
b. Property taxes from those peripheral properties which benefit
from their proximity to the lagoon should also be considered
in the revenue picture. The major portion of the property
tax should be considered as providing basic City services,
however that portion of the taxes derived from the increment
of value associated with proximity to the lagoon, could well
be considered as lagoon derived income. To illustrate this
rationale: a $100,000 condominium unit, equivilant to an
$90,000 unit in the vicinity of El Camino Real, would have an
incremental value of $10,000 due to it's lagoon proximity or
an additional tax burden of $100 which could be considered as
lagoon related revenue. A "benefit district" might also be
established to provide revenues more nearly meeting overall City
costs for lagoon maintenance/management. This is a simplistic
example of a highly complex process, but one which Council may
wish to consider in more detail. The Agua Hedionda Specific
Plan suggests the establishment of a benefit district to provide
a revenue source for lagoon maintenance.
SUMMARY DISCUSSION:
1. Resolution of the public trust issue and approval of the Agua
Hedionda Specific Plan must be considered in sending a decision
on the City's commitment to a long term agreement for lagoon
management.
2. City retains responsibilities for public health, safety and welfare
relating to the lagoon regardless of management agency.
3. The near time liability for unrestricted surface use may have to
be mitigated prior to a final decision as to maintenance dredging.
4. Direct revenues do not offset direct costs at the present time.
5. Future "benefits" derived from the lagoon must be assessed to
property owners and transient users in order to establish an
equitable revenue base.
Agua Hedionda (continued) -5- January 5, 1979
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Defer any long term commitment for lagoon management or maintenance
until the issue of ownership is resolved. Alternatively, a long
term agreement could be negotiated at this time with the inclusion
of appropriate safeguards, i.e., escape clauses relating to ownership.
2. Monitor siltation rates by initiating a survey program to provide
bottom profiles of selected areas on a six month frequency, to
provide information on the impact of the draw of Encina 5 on the
build up rate. This program will be less than the full survey
conducted for Dr. Smith and is estimated to cost about $10,000
per year and would include periodic low tide photos. Rick Engineering,
who did the original survey, will submit a proposal for this monitoring
program.
3. Limit speed of power boats in the shoal areas to 5 M.P.H. This may
pose serious restrictions to water ski launching and drop off at
the only available launch area. This will reduce City liabilities
for accidents/injuries, however, it will increase the policing
requirements.
ROGER/W. GREER
Director of Utilities & Maintenance
RWG:pag
cc: PWA